The Importance of Common Currency Tasks in Translational Psychiatry

Measuring the replicability of our own research

In the study of transgenic mouse models of neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders, we use batteries of tests to measure deficits in behaviour and from the results of these tests, we make inferences about the mental states of the mice that we interpret as deficits in "learning", "memory", "anxiety", "depression", etc. This paper discusses the problems of determining whether a particular transgenic mouse is a valid mouse model of disease X, the problem of background strains, and the question of whether our behavioural tests are measuring what we say they are. The problem of the reliability of results is then discussed: are they replicable between labs and can we replicate our results in our own lab? This involves the study of intra- and inter- experimenter reliability. The variables that influence replicability and the importance of conducting a complete behavioural phenotype: sensory, motor, cognitive and social emotional behaviour are discussed. Then the thorny question of failure to replicate is examined: Is it a curse or a blessing? Finally, the role of failure in research and what it tells us about our research paradigms is examined.

State-transition-free reinforcement learning in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

The outcome of an action often occurs after a delay. One solution for learning appropriate actions from delayed outcomes is to rely on a chain of state transitions. Another solution, which does not rest on state transitions, is to use an eligibility trace (ET) that directly bridges a current outcome and multiple past actions via transient memories. Previous studies revealed that humans (Homo sapiens) learned appropriate actions in a behavioral task in which solutions based on the ET were effective but transition-based solutions were ineffective. This suggests that ET may be used in human learning systems. However, no studies have examined nonhuman animals with an equivalent behavioral task. We designed a task for nonhuman animals following a previous human study. In each trial, participants chose one of two stimuli that were randomly selected from three stimulus types: a stimulus associated with a food reward delivered immediately, a stimulus associated with a reward delivered after a few trials, and a stimulus associated with no reward. The presented stimuli did not vary according to the participants' choices. To maximize the total reward, participants had to learn the value of the stimulus associated with a delayed reward. Five chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) performed the task using a touchscreen. Two chimpanzees were able to learn successfully, indicating that learning mechanisms that do not depend on state transitions were involved in the learning processes. The current study extends previous ET research by proposing a behavioral task and providing empirical data from chimpanzees.

Approach-avoidance reinforcement learning as a translational and computational model of anxiety-related avoidance

Although avoidance is a prevalent feature of anxiety-related psychopathology, differences in the measurement of avoidance between humans and non-human animals hinder our progress in its theoretical understanding and treatment. To address this, we developed a novel translational measure of anxiety-related avoidance in the form of an approach-avoidance reinforcement learning task, by adapting a paradigm from the non-human animal literature to study the same cognitive processes in human participants. We used computational modelling to probe the putative cognitive mechanisms underlying approach-avoidance behaviour in this task and investigated how they relate to subjective task-induced anxiety. In a large online study (n = 372), participants who experienced greater task-induced anxiety avoided choices associated with punishment, even when this resulted in lower overall reward. Computational modelling revealed that this effect was explained by greater individual sensitivities to punishment relative to rewards. We replicated these findings in an independent sample (n = 627) and we also found fair-to-excellent reliability of measures of task performance in a sub-sample retested 1 week later (n = 57). Our findings demonstrate the potential of approach-avoidance reinforcement learning tasks as translational and computational models of anxiety-related avoidance. Future studies should assess the predictive validity of this approach in clinical samples and experimental manipulations of anxiety.

The Complexity of Impulsivity Dimensions among Abstinent Individuals with Substance Use Disorders

Impulsivity is a complex construct that has been operationalized considering personality dimensions (e.g., negative urgency [NU], lack of perseverance [LPe], lack of premeditation [LPr], positive urgency [PU]), and neuropsychological processes (i.e., cognitive disinhibition, motor disinhibition, impulsive decision-making). Empirical research suggested that they could represent core features of substance use disorders (SUDs). However, there are no studies that have comprehensively assessed them among patients with SUDs. Furthermore, the quality of relationships among such domains remains unclear. The current case-control study included 59 abstinent patients with SUDs and 56 healthy controls (HCs). There were two independent assessment phases: i) the administration of UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale; ii) a computerized neuropsychological battery (i.e., Attentional Network Test, Go/No-Go task, Iowa Gambling task). Patients with SUDs reported higher levels of NU and PU than HCs. NU, LPe, and LPr were associated to the co-occurrence of multiple SUDs. Motor disinhibition was the core dimension of SUDs. Cognitive disinhibition and Impulsive decision-making were also associated to SUDs. Self-report and neuropsychological dimensions of impulsivity were not correlated within the clinical group. HCs showed significant associations among these domains of impulsivity. Impulsivity should be viewed as a complex system of personality traits and neuropsychological processes among individuals with SUDs.

Identifying Transdiagnostic Mechanisms in Mental Health Using Computational Factor Modeling

Most psychiatric disorders do not occur in isolation, and most psychiatric symptom dimensions are not uniquely expressed within a single diagnostic category. Current treatments fail to work for around 25% to 40% of individuals, perhaps due at least in part to an overreliance on diagnostic categories in treatment development and allocation. In this review, we describe ongoing efforts in the field to surmount these challenges and precisely characterize psychiatric symptom dimensions using large-scale studies of unselected samples via remote, online, and "citizen science" efforts that take a dimensional, mechanistic approach. We discuss the importance that efforts to identify meaningful psychiatric dimensions be coupled with careful computational modeling to formally specify, test, and potentially falsify candidate mechanisms that underlie transdiagnostic symptom dimensions. We refer to this approach, i.e., where symptom dimensions are identified and validated against computationally well-defined neurocognitive processes, as computational factor modeling. We describe in detail some recent applications of this method to understand transdiagnostic cognitive processes that include model-based planning, metacognition, appetitive processing, and uncertainty estimation. In this context, we highlight how computational factor modeling has been used to identify specific associations between cognition and symptom dimensions and reveal previously obscured relationships, how findings generalize to smaller in-person clinical and nonclinical samples, and how the method is being adapted and optimized beyond its original instantiation. Crucially, we discuss next steps for this area of research, highlighting the value of more direct investigations of treatment response that bridge the gap between basic research and the clinic.

Catastrophizing and Risk-Taking

Background

Catastrophizing, when an individual overestimates the probability of a severe negative outcome, is related to various aspects of mental ill-health. Here, we further characterize catastrophizing by investigating the extent to which self-reported catastrophizing is associated with risk-taking, using an online behavioural task and computational modelling.

Methods

We performed two online studies: a pilot study (n = 69) and a main study (n = 263). In the pilot study, participants performed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), alongside two other tasks (reported in the Supplement), and completed mental health questionnaires. Based on the findings from the pilot, we explored risk-taking in more detail in the main study using two versions of the Balloon Analogue Risk task (BART), with either a high or low cost for bursting the balloon.

Results

In the main study, there was a significant negative relationship between self-report catastrophizing scores and risk-taking in the low (but not high) cost version of the BART. Computational modelling of the BART task revealed no relationship between any parameter and Catastrophizing scores in either version of the task.

Conclusions

We show that increased self-reported catastrophizing may be associated with reduced behavioural measures of risk-taking, but were unable to identify a computational correlate of this effect.

Computational perspectives on human fear and anxiety

Fear and anxiety are adaptive emotions that serve important defensive functions, yet in excess, they can be debilitating and lead to poor mental health. Computational modelling of behaviour provides a mechanistic framework for understanding the cognitive and neurobiological bases of fear and anxiety, and has seen increasing interest in the field. In this brief review, we discuss recent developments in the computational modelling of human fear and anxiety. Firstly, we describe various reinforcement learning strategies that humans employ when learning to predict or avoid threat, and how these relate to symptoms of fear and anxiety. Secondly, we discuss initial efforts to explore, through a computational lens, approach-avoidance conflict paradigms that are popular in animal research to measure fear- and anxiety-relevant behaviours. Finally, we discuss negative biases in decision-making in the face of uncertainty in anxiety.

Reinforcement Learning in Patients With Mood and Anxiety Disorders vs Control Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Computational psychiatry studies have investigated how reinforcement learning may be different in individuals with mood and anxiety disorders compared with control individuals, but results are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether there are consistent differences in reinforcement-learning parameters between patients with depression or anxiety and control individuals.

DATA SOURCES

Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar searches were performed between November 15, 2019, and December 6, 2019, and repeated on December 3, 2020, and February 23, 2021, with keywords (reinforcement learning) AND (computational OR model) AND (depression OR anxiety OR mood).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they fit reinforcement-learning models to human choice data from a cognitive task with rewards or punishments, had a case-control design including participants with mood and/or anxiety disorders and healthy control individuals, and included sufficient information about all parameters in the models.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Articles were assessed for inclusion according to MOOSE guidelines. Participant-level parameters were extracted from included articles, and a conventional meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Subsequently, these parameters were used to simulate choice performance for each participant on benchmarking tasks in a simulation meta-analysis. Models were fitted, parameters were extracted using bayesian model averaging, and differences between patients and control individuals were examined. Overall effect sizes across analytic strategies were inspected.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were estimated reinforcement-learning parameters (learning rate, inverse temperature, reward learning rate, and punishment learning rate).

RESULTS

A total of 27 articles were included (3085 participants, 1242 of whom had depression and/or anxiety). In the conventional meta-analysis, patients showed lower inverse temperature than control individuals (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.215; 95% CI, -0.354 to -0.077), although no parameters were common across all studies, limiting the ability to infer differences. In the simulation meta-analysis, patients showed greater punishment learning rates (SMD, 0.107; 95% CI, 0.107 to 0.108) and slightly lower reward learning rates (SMD, -0.021; 95% CI, -0.022 to -0.020) relative to control individuals. The simulation meta-analysis showed no meaningful difference in inverse temperature between patients and control individuals (SMD, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The simulation meta-analytic approach introduced in this article for inferring meta-group differences from heterogeneous computational psychiatry studies indicated elevated punishment learning rates in patients compared with control individuals. This difference may promote and uphold negative affective bias symptoms and hence constitute a potential mechanistic treatment target for mood and anxiety disorders.

Cross-species anxiety tests in psychiatry: pitfalls and promises

Behavioural anxiety tests in non-human animals are used for anxiolytic drug discovery, and to investigate the neurobiology of threat avoidance. Over the past decade, several of them were translated to humans with three clinically relevant goals: to assess potential efficacy of candidate treatments in healthy humans; to develop diagnostic tests or biomarkers; and to elucidate the pathophysiology of anxiety disorders. In this review, we scrutinise these promises and compare seven anxiety tests that are validated across species: five approach-avoidance conflict tests, unpredictable shock anticipation, and the social intrusion test in children. Regarding the first goal, three tests appear suitable for anxiolytic drug screening in humans. However, they have not become part of the drug development pipeline and achieving this may require independent confirmation of predictive validity and cost-effectiveness. Secondly, two tests have shown potential to measure clinically relevant individual differences, but their psychometric properties, predictive value, and clinical applicability need to be clarified. Finally, cross-species research has not yet revealed new evidence that the physiology of healthy human behaviour in anxiety tests relates to the physiology of anxiety symptoms in patients. To summarise, cross-species anxiety tests could be rendered useful for drug screening and for development of diagnostic instruments. Using these tests for aetiology research in healthy humans or animals needs to be queried and may turn out to be unrealistic.